Simpson Outlines Views on Immigration Measure

I read with great interest two items in The Times on the immigration bill--your editorial (May 27), “Immigration: a Step Back,” and Frank del Olmo’s article (Editorial Pages, May 31), “Immigration Reform Claws at Fence.” I regret that the business of the Senate has kept me from making a more prompt response.

The Times takes exception to the new immigration bill “because it weakens the concept of amnesty (legalization) for illegal aliens.” This statement is completely misleading. The concept of legalization has weakened itself.

Since 1982, when the bill was first introduced, we have witnessed the following events: a consistent public rejection of any form of legalization (amnesty), by a margin of 35% to 55%; a Texas Democratic primary in which one candidate was nearly nominated solely because of his opposition to amnesty; a close vote in the House of Representatives on an amendment to delete the legalization program; the emergence of organizations devoted exclusively to defeating amnesty for illegal aliens; and the surfacing of “Simpson-Mazzoli kits” that contain counterfeit copies of every possible document necessary to qualify for legalization. Because the bill has been trashed and delayed by opponents for so long--ironically many of them the “true believers” and supporters of legalization--the public and congressional attitude toward legalization has soured, and opposition to the legislative concept of amnesty has solidified.

However, I remain deeply and personally committed to a legalization program, and I believe that the new bill contains provisions that can save legalization. A presidentially appointed commission--eight members appointed by the Speaker of the House and eight by the President of the Senate--would be required to find that traditional enforcement and employer sanctions have substantially reduced illegal immigration before the legalization program may begin. This approach would assist us in assuring the American public that legalization will not cause new illegal flows and that we will not require another legalization program five or 10 years “down the road”.

The new approach will also help us to live up to the recommendations of President Carter’s Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, which stated that legalization should not begin before new enforcement mechanisms are instituted and it should not be granted at a time when it would only encourage new flows of illegal aliens.

The Times argues that, during the period that legalization is delayed, the exploitation that illegal aliens now face will be prolonged. This assertion misses the point. If appropriate enforcement is not first put in place before we legalize, countless new illegal aliens will be drawn to the country, and an entire new generation of illegal aliens will be present, unprotected, and subject to exploitation.

Without serious enforcement measures, the whole unconscionable cycle of exploitation will be perpetuated. By trashing the bill again you get the status quo. That ought to be worth some more moving editorials for many more years.

The claims that the bill provides insufficient reimbursement to states--$1.8 billion over three years--or that I am a “restrictionist,” are inaccurate and disappointing. The Congressional Budget Office, a bipartisan organ of Congress, estimated that state and local governments would spend less than $600 million per year on programs of assistance to legalized aliens. The higher figures are outdated and come from a source that has consistently distorted the issue by using refugee “numbers” rather than “illegal undocumented” numbers: the Office of Management and Budget.

In addition, while I may be a “restrictionist” by your standards, I have always supported a program of legalization that a vast majority of the American public seems to reject as “too generous.” In this light, the label of “restrictionist” is off base. But so it goes in this game.

I crisply disagree with the assertion that immigration reform is futile unless we return to prior versions of the legislation. As events and public perceptions leads to a change in the legislative environment, so must it be our duty as representatives of the citizens to consider these changes if proposed legislation is to be successful.

ALAN K. SIMPSON

U.S. Senator

from Wyoming